Due Process and Confessions

IV. Due Process and Confessions a. Introduction i. First looking at interrogations and how the 14th Amendment applies 1. The 14th Amendment applies due process to the states 2. We will also be looking at the 5th Amendment which is important since it protects people from involuntarily self-incrimination in a trial setÝng (No forced self-incrimination/confession) 3. Talk about 6th Amendment right to counsel b. Brown v. Mississippi i. Facts: Brown (defendant) and two other men were found guilty of murdering Reymond Stewart and were sentenced to death. The evidence against them consisted solely of their own confessions which were induced by severe beatings at the hands of the local authorities. At trial, Brown and the others objected to the admission of the confessions and testified to the torture, saying their confessions were false. Other witnesses were called to testify to firsthand knowledge of the beatings and Brown and the other men still bore many of the psychical scars of the whippings when the trial commenced. The judge submitted the case to the jury, instructing them that if they had reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the confessions, the confessions should not be considered as evidence. Brown appealed to the state supreme court and the conviction was afÏrmed ii. Issue: Whether convictions resting solely on confessions are induced by violence perpetrated by state actors, consistent w/ the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment iii. The court held that confessions induced by violence are not consistent w/ the Due Process Clause and such evidence is therefore inadmissible at trial 1. The court overturned convictions based on confessions obtained after Ds had been whipped until they agreed to confess to such statements as the ofÏcers dictated a. The confessions are unreliable since anyone will say/admit to anything while being beaten b. Court does not want to endorse the police in breaking the law c. Court looks at a higher calling c. Ashcraft v. Tennessee i. Facts: Ashcraft’s wife was found dead in a ditch off the road she had taken on a trip to her mother’s house. Ashcraft was taken into custody at 7:00 in the evening on a Saturday and interrogated continuously in a room at the Shelby County jail until 9:30 a.m. on Monday. OfÏcers questioned him in relays while he sat with a light over his head. There was conflict in the evidence as to Ashcraft’s treatment and whether he ever confessed to involvement in the killing. However, according to the state, a confession was obtained that indicated that Ashcraft hired another man to kill his wife. Although Ashcraft pleaded not guilty, he and the other man, Ware, were both convicted based on the confession 1. Made a confession after being held in the room after 36 hrs ii. Court held that the confession was not voluntary, but compelled since Ashcraft did not have many breaks and was subjected to continuous questioning iii. Court stated that 36 hrs of questioning is too long, but what the court determines is too long of a time for questioning to be coercive depends on the totality of the circumstances 1. i.e. age of the suspect, whether they are not given food or bathroom breaks, not allowed to leave the room, etc. iv. The jury is not the final arbiter of whether the confession is voluntary since this is a question of law and not fact 1. Note 3: the note specifies the proper procedure for finding whether a confession is voluntary or not d. Spano v. New York i. Facts: Spano, a 25 year old junior high school graduate with a history of emotional instability was drinking in a bar when the decedent a former boxer took his money from the bar. Spano followed the victim from the bar to recover his money. A fight ensued in which the victim gave Spano a severe beating, kicking him in the head several times. Spano went home and secured a gun then walked back to a candy store where he found the victim. He fired five shots, two of which hit the victim and caused his death. A warrant was issued for his arrest for murder. Spano spoke with a friend, Bruno, who was a junior police ofÏcer and told the friend he intended to get a lawyer and turn himself in. Spano, with his attorney, surrendered the next day. The attorney advises Spano to answer no questions. Upon arrest, Spano was taken to the ofÏce of the DA and questioning began. For a time, Spano refused to answer and asked to see his attorney. His request was denied. Eventually, Bruno, his friend claimed his job was on the line if Spano did not answer their questions. Spano gave in and answered questions ii. Issue: Whether a confession is made after hours of interrogation, where the defendant has been denied his right to counsel, made voluntarily iii. The court held that the conviction cannot stand under the 14th Amendment 1. A confession made after hours of interrogation, and where the suspect has been denied his right to have an attorney present, is not made voluntarily and is inadmissible at trial iv. It would make a difference if the police were merely investigating the crime v. The court considers that Spano did not speak English well, was tricked to confess, etc. e. Colorado v. Connelly i. Facts: On August 18, 1983, Francis Connelly (defendant) stopped a police ofÏcer and spontaneously confessed to the murder of a young girl. Connelly had a history of mental illness and had gone off his medication six months before. The ofÏcer gave Connelly the Miranda warnings, and Connelly continued the confession and led police to the crime scene. Connelly appeared ii. iii. iv. v. competent to the ofÏcers. During a meeting with an attorney the next day, Connelly was confused and claimed voices told him to confess. Doctors found Connelly incompetent to aid his defense, but Connelly later regained competence to stand trial. Connelly moved to suppress his confession, and a psychiatrist testified that Connelly suffered from chronic schizophrenia and psychotic states that impeded his free will. The trial court suppressed the confession as involuntary. The Colorado Supreme Court afÏrmed Issue: Whether a statement made by a mentally ill person involuntarily is inadmissible even if there was no coercion by police under the Due Process Clause The court held that a statement made by a mentally ill person is not involuntary for purposes of the Due Process Clause if there is no coercive behavior by police 1. No state/police action since the police did not compel Connelly to confess and they even discouraged him from doing so Connelly voluntarily confessed by listening to the voices in his head, thus, according to the US Supreme Court, Connelly may have been crazy, but he could still understand his rights enough to waive them The US Supreme Court reinstated the charges 1. The court is not going to set aside a confession unless there is coercion initiated by state actors